LDS Hermeneutics

[Steve Noel]

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

[Robert F. Smith]

Your observations are correct, and most Mormons have never heard or used the word.  Like systematic theology, however, they would probably question whether it is even necessary -- depending as they do on the Holy Spirit to provide meaning to their regular Scripture reading.

Thus, although it is true that Mormons are frequently admonished in Sunday School to read for context, rather than prooftexting, hermeneutics is a subject never addressed within the LDS Church Educational System -- which does not include any formal theological seminary training.  Individual Mormon scholars who have been trained in biblical languages and theology at various major universities are familiar with such tools and use them regularly.  Then too, retired BYU professor Lou Midgley, who wrote his dissertation on Paul Tillich at Brown University, has had a great deal to say about the important hermeneutical writings of Paul Ricouer.  Such thought has not found its way into the Mormon mainstream.

[boblloyd91]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

The vast, vast majority of my fellow members have no idea what it is, as Robert was saying many LDS feel that the spirit will open the truth of the scriptures to them. Though I feel this is ultimately what is important, I also feel that sometimes people who read the scriptures without a knowledge of the background of what's going on can miss out. For example I'm reading Brant Gardner's work on the Book of Mormon and am learning much more about how it relates to the time period it came from, which has caused me to have a deeper appreciation for what the scriptures mean to me. I'm also working through NT Wright's book "Paul and the faithfulness of God". This is helping me better understand Paul and his worldview. It's annoying to me that so many people (both in and out of the church) reduce scriptures to a collection of proof texts rather then read the whole overall narrative and meaning.

Didn't mean to get on a soap box, but this is a subject that's near and dear to my heart. Short answer is no, we need to work on that. It's a hard balance though knowing when we're relying on the arm of flesh more then the spirit at times

Edited April 9, 2016 by boblloyd91
Increase what I wanted to say

[strappinglad]

Herman Munster I know. Who is this Hermen Eutics?

From my limited observations , there are  a few Biblical scholars who have used hermeneutics to learn a great deal about something they only lightly believe.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

I myself am a little uncomfortable in following any sort of "rules" in interpreting scripture other than that they should be interpreted in the light of the rest of the scriptures.

While I am aware that "the Jews" essentially interpret the scriptures with 4 possible modes of interpretation, I myself have never consciously gone through a systematic methodology for interpreting scriptures. I do believe sometimes they are literal, and sometimes they have hidden meaning. An example would be that often Old Testament stories are used to be a similitude for future events or sometimes representing heavenly things or things of God. 

With regard to your last question, as others have said the Church does not teach hermeneutics. Certain scriptures have been interpreted by various General Authorities, and they don't seem to look too kindly on anyone else giving a different interpretation. A more recent example would be the stone of Daniel 2 being the "church." I happen to believe God uses symbolism quite consistently, so I see stones as individual representatives of the gospel. Hence, Peter was a stone, and priesthood followers were "lively stones" with Christ as the chief cornerstone of the House of God. Mountains are groups of people or "churches." Hence, faith can move mountains or "churches." Christ is to inherit the holy mountains of the Father. The little stone of Daniel 2 comes out of the mountain, which I view as representing the Church. The Book of Revelation also uses the word "stone" in a similar fashion: "17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."

[bluebell]

Just wanted to add that while the church as an organization does not focus on hermeneutics, it is sometimes taught on the ward level. 

I've been to two different women's meetings, in two different states, with teachers who taught hermeneutics (though they did not use that term) to help us understand scripture better. 

It was really interesting. 

[6EQUJ5]

14 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

Who sets the rules?  What is the objective measure of proper interpretation?

The problem I've always had with anti-Mormon EV Christians is that they claim that their interpretation of Scripture is objectively correct.  This is silly.

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

As RFS has said, the answer is "no". 

Historically, the LDS Church has adopted an attitude towards the Bible that places "Prophetic interpretation" and LDS beliefs as the primary lens through which to interpret the Bible, and has been very suspicous of anything that might threaten the traditional LDS view of things (for example, see the institutional suspicion towards non KJV Bibles, or any scholarship that questions the traditional view of the Bible as might be found in the early 1800s).  

This is especially evident if you go into an LDS Bookstore and look at the books that are published to help LDS understand the Old and New Testaments.

Books like this:

Verse By Verse: The Old Testament

The Old Testament Made Easier

If you want to know why this is, I highly recommend this book, which traces the LDS relationship to the Bible from Joseph Smith's day to modern times:

Mormons and the Bible

As I mentioned before, this is most evident in our suspicion and rejection of any non-KJV Bibles (although they may be used "in secret" by some LDS scholars, they are never accepted in Church meetings or classes).  This is also evident in the reinforcement of traditional views (such as Moses writing the Book of Genesis) which I don't think are supported by modern scholarship.

There is also the additional factor of The Book of Mormon.  As you probably know, The Book of Mormon claims that Lehi's family left Jerusalem with a copy of the scriptures around 600BC, and then quotes from those scriptures for the remainder of the book.  A lot of these quotes and teachings deal with Isaiah's writings.  But if someone comes up with a theory (based on hermeneutics ) that parts of Isaiah weren't written until after 600BC, then that creates huge problems for The Book of Mormon.  Certainly, not a problem that can't be handled with a heavy dose of creativity on the part of apologists, but it is a problem nonetheless.

Edited April 9, 2016 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

This is where the spirit is supposed to speak.  In LDS thought (IMO) you read scriptures and you will know that they are true by the spirit.  I know that many of us have interpreted some scriptures differently.  I try not to be too literal and still not read things as stories or parables etc.  Later in years, I have found that I was completed off base on some of them.  We were taught to study them out and pray.  So, for me, this is a very new word!  Thank you..you have helped me learn something and I value that.

Quote

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

The question is even if one applies basic rules of interpreting scripture, will they arrive at the right conclusion.  I am sure the pharisees thought of themselves as masters of the scriptures and had basic rules of interpreting the scriptures but to Christ they all arrived at wrong conclusions.  So good to have rules but that by itself will not cause a person to go down the wrong rabbit hole.

[Steve Noel]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your observations are correct, and most Mormons have never heard or used the word.  Like systematic theology, however, they would probably question whether it is even necessary -- depending as they do on the Holy Spirit to provide meaning to their regular Scripture reading.

Thus, although it is true that Mormons are frequently admonished in Sunday School to read for context, rather than prooftexting, hermeneutics is a subject never addressed within the LDS Church Educational System -- which does not include any formal theological seminary training.  Individual Mormon scholars who have been trained in biblical languages and theology at various major universities are familiar with such tools and use them regularly.  Then too, retired BYU professor Lou Midgley, who wrote his dissertation on Paul Tillich at Brown University, has had a great deal to say about the important hermeneutical writings of Paul Ricouer.  Such thought has not found its way into the Mormon mainstream.

The average Evangelical would not know what hermeneuticis means either. In fact, the average Evangelical pastor knows little about hermeneutics. In my first class on hermeneutics the teacher said that if you will learn to read the texts of Scripture in context, then you will know more than most pastors. If you've ever watched most TV preachers, then you know that they have definitely never heard of hermeneutics.

Yet this is something that is foundational when an Evangelical seeks higher education in a biblical/theological/pastoral field. In working on my BA in Religion I have transferred 4 different times. Every school puts hermeneutics as one of the first courses of study. When I start working on my MA in Apologetics, the first course I will take is on hermeneutics. My pastor is working on a doctoral degree in Biblical Interpretation and Theology. One of his first courses was on hermeneutics. 

I have been thinking a lot about this dynamic in Evangelical / Latter-day Saint discussions / debates. Those who would engage Latter-day Saints in discussion / debate will almost certainly have some training in hermeneutics. I don't think I could overstate the importance educated Evangelicals place on this. This is why so many discussions / debates on biblical texts between many Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints can be so frustrating. A discussion on principles of interpretation would go a long way in understanding where the other person is coming form.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

The average Evangelical would not know what hermeneuticis means either. In fact, the average Evangelical pastor knows little about hermeneutics. In my first class on hermeneutics the teacher said that if you will learn to read the texts of Scripture in context, then you will know more than most pastors. If you've ever watched most TV preachers, then you know that they have definitely never heard of hermeneutics.
.....................................................................

Yeh, but I do enjoy watching Joel Osteen and his wife preach, even if it is the Prosperity Gospel (which Gordon Fee derides), and a lot of people do attend his services.  People want a positive, hopeful message.

I used to watch Billy Graham, who presented a very different message, but still with a lot of hope.

[Steve Noel]

21 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

The vast, vast majority of my fellow members have no idea what it is, as Robert was saying many LDS feel that the spirit will open the truth of the scriptures to them. Though I feel this is ultimately what is important, I also feel that sometimes people who read the scriptures without a knowledge of the background of what's going on can miss out. For example I'm reading Brant Gardner's work on the Book of Mormon and am learning much more about how it relates to the time period it came from, which has caused me to have a deeper appreciation for what the scriptures mean to me. I'm also working through NT Wright's book "Paul and the faithfulness of God". This is helping me better understand Paul and his worldview. It's annoying to me that so many people (both in and out of the church) reduce scriptures to a collection of proof texts rather then read the whole overall narrative and meaning.

Didn't mean to get on a soap box, but this is a subject that's near and dear to my heart. Short answer is no, we need to work on that. It's a hard balance though knowing when we're relying on the arm of flesh more then the spirit at times

It is encouraging to read this. You are absolutely correct about how much we miss when we don't know the background and setting of a book / writer. Thanks for sharing.

[boblloyd91]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

It is encouraging to read this. You are absolutely correct about how much we miss when we don't know the background and setting of a book / writer. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you for the kind words. We really enjoy having you on the board! I was just thinking, if you would like to see a Latter Day Saint who uses a great deal of hermeneutics and bible commentary, you may want to check out Robert Boylan's blog scripturalmormonism.blogspot.ie he is an Irish Mormon who writes a lot about the intersection of Mormonism and the bible. Be warned though he is very opposed to reformed interpretations of the bible and can be polemical at times towards that worldview 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/9/2016 at 5:18 PM, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

No, there are no "proper rules", simply as guided by the spirit.

And no I have not read the thread so far.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed, "scholars" are no closer to God than others

There is no need to trust them for anything.

They have no ecclesiastical authority, are not ordained, nor show any indication of even leading spiritual lives.  Why would anyone listen to them?

The original 12 apostles were simple men and so are we.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/9/2016 at 6:48 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Your observations are correct, and most Mormons have never heard or used the word.  Like systematic theology, however, they would probably question whether it is even necessary -- depending as they do on the Holy Spirit to provide meaning to their regular Scripture reading.

Thus, although it is true that Mormons are frequently admonished in Sunday School to read for context, rather than prooftexting, hermeneutics is a subject never addressed within the LDS Church Educational System -- which does not include any formal theological seminary training.  Individual Mormon scholars who have been trained in biblical languages and theology at various major universities are familiar with such tools and use them regularly.  Then too, retired BYU professor Lou Midgley, who wrote his dissertation on Paul Tillich at Brown University, has had a great deal to say about the important hermeneutical writings of Paul Ricouer.  Such thought has not found its way into the Mormon mainstream.

Speaking of Ricouer, this is an amazing book

http://www.euppublishing.com/book/9780748637591

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Indeed, "scholars" are no closer to God than others

There is no need to trust them for anything.

They have no ecclesiastical authority, are not ordained, nor show any indication of even leading spiritual lives.  Why would anyone listen to them?

The original 12 apostles were simple men and so are we.

You quote philosophers to support your posts all the time.

Just sayin'

[juliann]

On 4/9/2016 at 11:50 AM, cinepro said:

 

As I mentioned before, this is most evident in our suspicion and rejection of any non-KJV Bibles (although they may be used "in secret" by some LDS scholars, they are never accepted in Church meetings or classes). 

 

Ehhhhh....you aren't keeping up with scholarship*. It would be unusual for a scholar to not do their own translations unless they are out of their area of expertise.  General Conference speakers have used other translations more than once which can easily be seen in footnotes even if not obvious when spoken (they don't do more than a verse or two.) Once it hits Conference all bets are off.

I spoke in Sacrament meeting last month on the life of Christ as lead up to Easter. I quoted extensively. From the NRSV.  I never use the KJV other than to stay on the same page in classes, and haven't for years.  We did have a GD teacher years ago who started the year by bringing in stacks of books from DB and the KJV to let everybody know what was "acceptable." 

As with everything Mormon, your mileage will vary depending on the Ward personalities and how noisy they are.

*  See fn 9          " 9. אני־אמרתי אתם אלהים ובני עליון כלכם. Quotations from the Bible will be from the nrsv unless otherwise noted." http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/psalm-82-in-contemporary-latter-day-saint-tradition/

Edited April 11, 2016 by juliann

[The Nehor]

On 4/9/2016 at 7:18 PM, Steve Noel said:

Is there any emphasis on proper hermeneutics inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In my limited interaction with Latter-day Saints I have noticed that there seems to be little awareness of basic rules of interpreting Scripture. Is this a misunderstanding based on limited exposure, or is this not something the LDS Church emphasizes (or agrees with)? 

That is because we practice improper hermeneutics. It is more fun and edgy.

[strappinglad]

One should remember that not a few Biblical scholars question even the EXISTANCE of Moses, let alone that he wrote anything at all. Establishing when a particular  book was written and by whom, is quite an art. Mostly modern art and impressionistic.

[Bernard Gui]

On April 9, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Steve Noel said:

The average Evangelical would not know what hermeneuticis means either. In fact, the average Evangelical pastor knows little about hermeneutics. In my first class on hermeneutics the teacher said that if you will learn to read the texts of Scripture in context, then you will know more than most pastors. If you've ever watched most TV preachers, then you know that they have definitely never heard of hermeneutics.

Yet this is something that is foundational when an Evangelical seeks higher education in a biblical/theological/pastoral field. In working on my BA in Religion I have transferred 4 different times. Every school puts hermeneutics as one of the first courses of study. When I start working on my MA in Apologetics, the first course I will take is on hermeneutics. My pastor is working on a doctoral degree in Biblical Interpretation and Theology. One of his first courses was on hermeneutics. 

I have been thinking a lot about this dynamic in Evangelical / Latter-day Saint discussions / debates. Those who would engage Latter-day Saints in discussion / debate will almost certainly have some training in hermeneutics. I don't think I could overstate the importance educated Evangelicals place on this. This is why so many discussions / debates on biblical texts between many Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints can be so frustrating. A discussion on principles of interpretation would go a long way in understanding where the other person is coming form.

Does training in hermeneutics result in increased faith in Jesus Christ and a greater determination to follow Him?

[Bernard Gui]

One of the great LDS scholars, Hugh Nibley, had this to say about scholars and prophets...

Quote

No man who has a testimony is dependent on any other man for that testimony. Everyone must know for himself that Jesus is the Christ. No one is expected to believe the gospel is true because some official or board or synod says it is..... Obviously, then, the prophetic gift, the highest form of revelation, coming directly from above cannot be transmitted through any courses of instructions, however valuable they may be as a preparation. It cannot be acquired in any school. In a word, the prophet is not a scholar. As surely as the words of a prophet are written down in books, they become the object of specialist study. Once the true prophet has been duly rejected and passed to his reward, swarms of experts descend upon his words to begin the learned business of exegesis. The words of the dead prophets become the peculiar possession of armies of specially trained and carefully conditioned scholars.... Now, the prophet recognizes the merit of study; there is a spirit in man, Paul tells, us, and we know that the spirit of Jesus Christ enlightens every man that comes into the world. The prophet recognizes the scholar for what he is, but the scholar does not return the compliment. He cannot conceive how anyone could possibly acquire knowledge by any method other than his.... Let us return to Paul, by far the best-educated, Clement assures us, of all the disciples of Christ. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, nor was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...I count all things but dross for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." That is indeed knowledge worthy having, and it is to be had only by revelation. It is our happy duty to announce that since the restoration of the gospel such revelation is again available to mankind, provided they heed the words of the prophets, and do no regard their own discoveries and conclusions as the end of knowledge. Hugh Nibley. "Prophets and Scholars." The World and the Prophets. Deseret Book Company, 1954, pp.23-29.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Double post. Sorry.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[salgare]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

One of the great LDS scholars, Hugh Nibley, had this to say about scholars...

BKP did not care much for scholars either

“It is so easy to be turned about without realizing that it has happened to us. There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right.

“The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.